W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Comments on 27 May 2005 WD of XHTML 2.0

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:21:43 -0400
Message-Id: <p06110403bf2a5438fb6c@[192.168.221.14]>
To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, wai-xtech@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

At 7:35 PM +0200 8/17/05, Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Perhaps my original message [1] was too cryptic.
>The comments in the attached HTML file were written as requests, 
>comments etc to the HTML WG.
>Some comments are related to accessibility: these can all be found 
>by searching the word "accessibility" (marked with <strong> and in 
>red) in the document. Some of these comments have to do with the way 
>certain elements are defined (e.g. object); others have to do with 
>bad practices shown in code examples.
>All of this is offered to mailing list to see if there's anything 
>that PFWG or any other group in WAI wants to pass on to the HTML WG. 
>If there is no discussion, I'll just send the document to 
><mailto:www-html@w3.org>www-html@w3.<mailto:www-html@w3.org>org.

Christophe,

Hi.

Thank you for writing these up.

Apologies for the delay in responding. I told Wendy that yes, we
would look at these; but now I fear I am about to take a week of
vacation and having failed to get much PF brain-share applied to this
I need to change course and suggest that you post these on
www-html as personal questions without waiting for further comment.

I suspect that various of the ones flagged as accessibility concerns
may have simple technical answers, such as that if the content model in a
DTD says PCDATA, then markup *is* acceptable in that content. But I
don't right now have time or helpers to track that down in detail with the
speed that other participants in www-html may be able to.

.. a few sample comments:

In that particular instance, the 'title' property was changed from an
attribute to an element specifically to allow markup, both for i18n
and accessibility, so if the technical implementation has failed to
support markup in the element content it's a bug they will want to
fix.

In your @@todo: improve stylesheet notation --
Do you mean that you are taking back an action item to propose
improvements or you are asking them to improve it.  If the latter,
you will be most effective with concrete suggestions such as the
one about making sure that background and foreground text
colors are set atomically (both or neither) in the style rules.

Al

>Regards,
>
>Christophe Strobbe
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2005Aug/0000.html
>
>At 18:32 10/08/2005, you wrote:
>>Dear list members,
>>
>>Please find attached an HTML file with comments on the 27 May 2005 
>>Working Draft of XHTML 2.0. Some comments are related to 
>>accessibility and could be discussed on this list.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Christophe Strobbe
>>(WCAG WG participant)
>>
>>P.S. The main motivation for writing these comments is the WCAG 2.0 
>>test suite for XHTML 2.0 that will be produced by the BenToWeb 
>>project (www.bentoweb.org). This explains the requests for 
>>clarifications.
>
>--
>Christophe Strobbe
>K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group 
>on Document Architectures
>Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
>tel: +32 16 32 85 51
>http://www.docarch.be/
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2005 15:22:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:39 GMT